when taken into historical context, was Marx "anti-religious"?

[Adi Shankara]

I don't believe he was. he often spoke on church power structures, and their susceptibility to abusing the proletariat, but I don't believe he was against religious belief or a belief in a higher power per se.

the full quote of his "opiate" paragraph:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

people forget, in the mid 19th century, opium wasn't considered a bad, addictive drug--it was more or less considered a double edged sword, capable of providing great comfort (as it was initially thought of in the 19th century, as a drug of pain relief) or can create addiction and helplessness (as seen in the Chinese opium war).

so I think Marx was referring to religion as a double edged sword; to be used to hurt, or to be used to heal. the text of the passage seems to complete that idea, and even so, we don't know if he was strictly referring to organized religious structure, or religious, spiritual beliefs in general.

I don't know why some "Marxists" call themselves atheists simply because Marx might've been; in fact, many great marxists, like Thomas Sankara, Daniel Ortega, had religion. so I don't see this moratorium that many "communists" try to impose on others.

[Adi Shankara]

"I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people". (Karl Marx, Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842.)

[¿Que?]

See my sig. It's from the philosophic manuscripts. Although I consider myself an atheist and anti-theist, I think you might be partly correct. I think that Marx considered atheism a lost cause, that the real movement should be with the working class, not some anti-religion thing which in it's modern manifestations can take on quite reactionary characteristics.

That said, at the same time the institutions of religion have proven themselves to be reactionary as well, and to consider simple, individual faith above institutions is an idealist assumption in that it abstracts ideas above the real actions and organizations of people.

I realize I'm sort of riding the fence on this one, mainly because I know that in certain respects, like with liberation theology movements, the working class has benefited from left-wing religious movements.

However, I ultimately think this is misguided. The reality is that all religions are man made, essentially and very tersely what Marx took from Feurerbach.

I think it's a bit like if Scientologists were to one day start organizing and raising worker consciousness. You could not disparage their actions, although essentially you'd have to reject their philosophy.

[28350]

Yes.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't know why some "Marxists" call themselves atheists simply because Marx might've been; in fact, many great marxists, like Thomas Sankara, Daniel Ortega, had religion. so I don't see this moratorium that many "communists" try to impose on others.

I think many people who are atheist and happen to be Marxists as well do so not because "Marx did it so I must follow him!", but rather because it makes more sense than the spiritual beliefs espoused by religions.

Plus, religion is anti-materialist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think many people who are atheist and happen to be Marxists as well do so not because "Marx did it so I must follow him!", but rather because it makes more sense than the spiritual beliefs espoused by religions.

Plus, religion is anti-materialist.

I would disagree. I find there to be a major difference between religious beliefs & religion, itself. Religion of today plays as an easy-penny through self-interest desires, whether it be through greed or lust. These "pay for your sin" delusions that most religion-based organizations is nothing more than the materialist self-interest playing the slide-of-hands, using superstitious beliefs as the illusion.

[¿Que?]

I would disagree. I find there to be a major difference between religious beliefs & religion, itself. Religion of today plays as an easy-penny through self-interest desires, whether it be through greed or lust. These "pay for your sin" delusions that most religion-based organizations is nothing more than the materialist self-interest playing the slide-of-hands, using superstitious beliefs as the illusion.
If I may interject. Obviously, the institution of religion and all their various creeds have materialist foundations that created them. On the other hand, the point of religion is the illusion not the reality. If you point out the material foundations for any religious belief, it renders the illusion moot, and yet, every religion will insist on the illusion as truth. Although, to say religion is anti-materialist is not technically correct. I think it is un-materialist. Some aspects of religion are anti-materialist, but mostly, religion is incapable of offering a sound critique of materialism mostly because it rejects logic.

EDIT: It may take anti-materialist positions in practice, but the philosophy of religion has developed into something which is un-materialist.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What constitutes being anti-religious? I'm an atheist(And no not because Karl Marx was, I found atheism before I heard of Marx) does that mean I'm anti-religious? Most of Marx's criticism is face towards the real world, the basis of these religions. To criticize religion you had to get at the basis upon the material conditions behind the religion, that's what the last sentence of that quote says. If you read some of his stuff he does make anti-religious quips, I remember in Capital Vol. 1 chapter one out of nowhere he calls Christian's sheep. It made me lol because it was like comic relief in that mammoth book and there are many like that in Capital from what I've read so far. But Marx said you can't destroy religion through laws if that's the type of answer you were looking for.

[cb9's_unity]

Religion and materialism often do conflict, but they don't necessarily have to. Especially when it comes to the materialist conception of history.

One can believe in god and follow some sort of religious code. However if they believe their god didn't have a large hand in shaping human history, and that history is primarily the result of class struggle and changes in the means of production, then they are essentially a materialist (at least where Marxists are concerned).

And Marx certainly didn't mean the comparison to opium to be a good one. Opium, like religion, offered a distraction from the reality's of capitalism. If one is transfixed with religion and what will happen in the next life, they will be less likely to focus on class struggle in this one.

[ZeroNowhere]

"We know that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."

[Invincible Summer]

"We know that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."


Do you think people who were previously religious would try to atone their religious beliefs with communism, thus not seeing a disappearance of religion?

I mean hell, we see quite a few "christian communists" here on Revleft.

[Blake's Baby]

Any Christain can be a communist, all you need to believe is that if people believe in God enough they can work together; but you can't simultaneously be a Christian and a Marxist, because you either believe that God created Man, or you believe that humankind created god. Can't see how it's possible to believe both.

And no, it's not a 'dialectical relationship' before anyone suggests it might be.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Do you think people who were previously religious would try to atone their religious beliefs with communism, thus not seeing a disappearance of religion?

I mean hell, we see quite a few "christian communists" here on Revleft.

It's possible. During the Great Depression, a time period in the US where it witnessed the largest Communist uprising in the States of all US history, even to this day, the Communist movements had a huge help by the religious believers. In fact, a lot of priests & preachers during those times sided with the CP, especially in areas such as Birmingham, Chatanooga, etc.

[S.Artesian]

Without a doubt Marx was anti-religious, and an atheist. Doesn't mean he advocated punishing all people who weren't anti-religious and not atheists, but you certainly aren't going to find Marx condemning those who during the French Revolution burned the churches, chase out the priests, and confiscated the church lands. You'll find him endorsing those actions.

[al8]

The battle against religion has many fronts, just as religion has many aspects. Social development is one front and domination or monopoly on education is another. All methods can be valid and of some value and help in that struggle.

[McCroskey]

For Marx, religion was a man-made mechanism to achieve happiness and fullfilment when class relations were preventing most of mankind from achieving it. If we cannot find happiness in our current conditions, we will seek confort in other super-natural things, thus the human being bring religion as a kind of "sedative" and as a reason for their existance, as they are alienated from their main role in society.

Marx was an atheist, as any logical and illustrated person would be, but he didn´t seek the abolition of religions. What he did seek was a state of affairs, ie communism, in which the role of every individual in society was the correct one, thus making redundant the need for a "super-natural" explanation for their lives.

What Marx was advocating was the destruction of the human relations that made possible for religions to rise as the human reason to live, not the abolition of this religions per se.

Religions are a symptom, if we remove the cause, they will disappear, but if we only remove the symptom, the cause would still be there, and the symptom would reappear again.

[it_ain't_me]

this is certainly not the last word on marxism and religion, in fact i don't necessarily agree with it, but it is relevant
Modern Socialism, in fact, as it exists in the minds of its leading exponents, and as it is held and worked for by an increasing number of enthusiastic adherents throughout the civilised world, has an essentially material, matter-of-fact foundation. We do not mean that its supporters are necessarily materialists in the vulgar, and merely anti-theological, sense of the term, but that they do not base their Socialism upon any interpretation of the language or meaning of Scripture, nor upon the real or supposed intentions of a beneficent Deity. They as a party neither affirm or deny those things, but leave it to the individual conscience of each member to determine what beliefs on such questions they shall hold. As a political party they wisely prefer to take their stand upon the actual phenomena of social life as they can be observed in operation amongst us to-day, or as they can be traced in the recorded facts of history. If any special interpretation of the meanings of Scripture tends to influence human thought in the direction of Socialism, or is found to be on a plane with the postulates of Socialist doctrine, then the scientific Socialist considers that the said interpretation is stronger because of its identity with the teachings of Socialism, but he does not necessarily believe that Socialism is stronger, or its position more impregnable, because of its theological ally. He realises that the facts upon which his Socialist faith are based are strong enough in themselves to withstand every shock, and attacks from every quarter, and therefore while he is at all times willing to accept help from every extraneous source, he will only accept it on one condition, viz., that he is not to be required in return to identify his cause with any other whose discomfiture might also involve Socialism in discredit. This is the main reason why Socialists fight shy of theological dogmas and religions generally: because we feel that Socialism is based upon a series of facts requiring only unassisted human reason to grasp and master all their details, whereas Religion of every kind is admittedly based upon ‘faith’ in the occurrence in past ages of a series of phenomena inexplicable by any process of mere human reasoning. Obviously, therefore, to identify Socialism with Religion would be to abandon at once that universal, non-sectarian character which to-day we find indispensable to working-class unity, as it would mean that our members would be required to conform to one religious creed, as well as to one specific economic faith – a course of action we have no intention of entering upon as it would inevitably entangle us in the disputes of the warring sects of the world, and thus lead to the disintegration of the Socialist Party. Socialism, as a party, bases itself upon its knowledge of facts, of economic truths, and leaves the building up of religious ideals or faiths to the outside public, or to its individual members if they so will. It is neither Freethinker nor Christian, Turk nor Jew, Buddhist nor Idolator, Mahommedan nor Parsee – it is only human. http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/socrel.htm

as stupid as religion is, i do think a socialist at least has to acknowledge the contribution that religious people have played in both socialist and national liberation struggles historically speaking. that's not to say that people have become progressives because of their religion (this doesn't really happen on any significant scale) but rather to point out that people can become progressive *despite* the fact that they still cling to certain stupid religious superstitions. even this is rare, but it does happen.

when religious people *do* find their way to a progressive stance, often they will fall out of religion on their own as they get more and more disgusted with the reactionary social role played by organized religion, as well as the overtly reactionary social message it preaches (''the poor will always be with you...'' etc.). like in one of my favorite scenes from the wind that shakes the barley, where damian storms out of church when the preacher gives a sermon in favor of the irish free state:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGzSLJ4PuTM&feature=related that's why, even though i find his tone overly accommodating and slightly suggestive of the utterly false idea that there is a continued role for religion in future society, i generally agree with at least the main thrust of connolly's take on marxism and religion--namely, that we should focus on educating people about scientific socialism, and let the case against religion make itself.

[KC]

Marx was certainly not "anti-religion". He recognized it as a symptom of the development of the division of labour in society and analyzed both its progressive and reactionary tendencies. He saw it not only as a response to alienation but also as a revolt against it. This is the twofold nature of religion which gets lost in todays arguments about the subject.

In fact, he heavily criticized Feuerbach's anti-theism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm) as futile and ultimately bourgeois. Christopher Hitchens is a good example of this nowadays.

EDIT: Myself and Random Precision explained Marx's theories on religion in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-perspectives-religion-t85163/index.html).

[Adi Shankara]

In fact, a lot of priests & preachers during those times sided with the CP, especially in areas such as Birmingham, Chatanooga, etc.

and in Nicaragua; the Bishop of Managua split with Rome on support for Daniel Ortega, whereas the official stance in Rome was that communism was "evil", Daniel Ortega was pro-catholic and thus he had the support of the religious people in the countryside.

[Adi Shankara]

Without a doubt Marx was anti-religious, and an atheist. Doesn't mean he advocated punishing all people who weren't anti-religious and not atheists, but you certainly aren't going to find Marx condemning those who during the French Revolution burned the churches, chase out the priests, and confiscated the church lands. You'll find him endorsing those actions.

Marx disliked atheists; if you see the quote above, he likened them to children getting over their fear of monsters. :laugh:

[Invincible Summer]

Marx disliked atheists; if you see the quote above, he likened them to children getting over their fear of monsters. :laugh:

What if Marx liked to shove peanut butter into his nostrils whenever someone said "socialism doesn't work?" Would you think that's the right thing to do too?

Seriously, I don't get why some users on here do nothing but go "But (insert leftist philosopher here) said (insert quote here)."

It's only acceptable in certain contexts, especially debating historical points of contention. But in this case, no one is arguing that Marx liked atheists whatever. Just because Marx had a certain view on religion doesn't mean anyone who considers themselves a Marxist or Communist or whatever has to have the exact same view. We're not goddamned puppets.

To address your point directly, I would argue that it's better to be the child that isn't afraid of the bogeyman and lives life normally than one who is scared shitless that a beast is hiding under the tiny space under their bed and will eat them and is sleep-deprived.

[KC]

Seriously, I don't get why some users on here do nothing but go "But (insert leftist philosopher here) said (insert quote here)."

This is a discussion on Marx's view on athiesm, so it's definitely appropriate here.

[Adi Shankara]

This is a discussion on Marx's view on atheism, so it's definitely appropriate here.


Exactly; this thread is on Marx's views on religion (including atheism), so it's very appropriate to talk about his views on atheists.

[al8]

Marx disliked atheists; if you see the quote above, he likened them to children getting over their fear of monsters. :laugh:

The main difference though is that monster-under-beds-ists don't have established rackets. The only reason why atheists can even sustain in single issue pestering is because god rackets have such a firm hold on people through diverse means. Some religious institutions double as a social club, as relief orgs, etc. In short they gobble up social space to fasten themselves in place. That is why not affirming ones faith in public of "monsters under your bed" can also double as a possible sacrifice of a valued social venue, a spouse, a family, a friend, a job and so forth.

[Adi Shankara]

The main difference though is that monster-under-beds-ists don't have established rackets. The only reason why atheists can even sustain in single issue pestering is because god rackets have such a firm hold on people through diverse means. Some religious institutions double as a social club, as relief orgs, etc. In short they gobble up social space to fasten themselves in place. That is why not affirming ones faith in public of "monsters under your bed" can also double as a possible sacrifice of a valued social venue, a spouse, a family, a friend, a job and so forth.

Again, no offense implied to my atheist brothers and sisters, because many of you are friends and family, and I believe we are all entitled to our beliefs, but I think Karl Marx was likening them to a Dawkins type (CAN'T STAND people who belittle others based on their beliefs, christian, atheist, capitalist, whatever) who constantly have to battle Christians in public in order to avoid having their ego deflate on them.

[Invincible Summer]

Exactly; this thread is on Marx's views on religion (including atheism), so it's very appropriate to talk about his views on atheists.

Yes, but I took the last part of your OP to be the theme of the thread:


so I think Marx was referring to religion as a double edged sword; to be used to hurt, or to be used to heal. the text of the passage seems to complete that idea, and even so, we don't know if he was strictly referring to organized religious structure, or religious, spiritual beliefs in general.

I don't know why some "Marxists" call themselves atheists simply because Marx might've been; in fact, many great marxists, like Thomas Sankara, Daniel Ortega, had religion. so I don't see this moratorium that many "communists" try to impose on others.

And you seem to be arguing that because Marx argued x, Marxists should also have the same position. I think this is silly.

[Adi Shankara]

And you seem to be arguing that because Marx argued x, Marxists should also have the same position. I think this is silly.

I don't; in fact, I argue quite the opposite, but I'm just giving the example that, if people follow atheism strictly because they think Marx told them to...then they're wrong for doing so, because Marx didn't even condone atheism. that's all.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't; in fact, I argue quite the opposite, but I'm just giving the example that, if people follow atheism strictly because they think Marx told them to...then they're wrong for doing so, because Marx didn't even condone atheism. that's all.

What do you mean he didn't condone atheism? You totally misread that quote you provided, in that quote he's saying the label atheism has a negative connotation, saying when people hear it they think of children who need to tell everybody they're not afraid of the bogey man. Or in other words it brings to mind preachy atheists, saying he doesn't condone atheism because of that one quote is nonsense, kind of like that quote of Marx saying he's not a Marxist(Which has been taken out of context to make it look like Marx thought his ideas were bad and shouldn't be listened to).

[al8]

Again, no offense implied to my atheist brothers and sisters, because many of you are friends and family, and I believe we are all entitled to our beliefs, but I think Karl Marx was likening them to a Dawkins type (CAN'T STAND people who belittle others based on their beliefs, christian, atheist, capitalist, whatever) who constantly have to battle Christians in public in order to avoid having their ego deflate on them.

None taken. Fervent single issue enthusiasts of all stripes can come off as myopic. It comes with having a narrow focus and ignoring other issues. Its not done out of egoism, the reason is often a practical one; if you don't specialized you can get overstretched with to many issues on your hand. I don't think its anything to get irritated over. The solution to myopic peddlers is simply to point out to them the bigger picture when its appropriate.

A socialist friend once invited me to compare the total money provided to the state church (my opposition to it was disproportional) to the surplus taken from working people at the point of production in the economy as a whole as well as in individual sectors and companies. That is what made me concede that there were larger issues involved and that I may have had to adjust my priorities/emphasis accordingly.

Most atheists I am acquainted with know how to engage with people on a broader basis in daily life - and only engage in advocacy when the time is appropriate, or when they feel like it on message boards and such.

[redwinter]

I don't believe he was. he often spoke on church power structures, and their susceptibility to abusing the proletariat, but I don't believe he was against religious belief or a belief in a higher power per se.

the full quote of his "opiate" paragraph:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

people forget, in the mid 19th century, opium wasn't considered a bad, addictive drug--it was more or less considered a double edged sword, capable of providing great comfort (as it was initially thought of in the 19th century, as a drug of pain relief) or can create addiction and helplessness (as seen in the Chinese opium war).

so I think Marx was referring to religion as a double edged sword; to be used to hurt, or to be used to heal. the text of the passage seems to complete that idea, and even so, we don't know if he was strictly referring to organized religious structure, or religious, spiritual beliefs in general.

I don't know why some "Marxists" call themselves atheists simply because Marx might've been; in fact, many great marxists, like Thomas Sankara, Daniel Ortega, had religion. so I don't see this moratorium that many "communists" try to impose on others.

This is a pretty egregious stretching of Marx's words to try to provide a justification for your own narrow (and fundamentally anti-communist) agenda to promote religion, Thomas.

For one thing if you read the quote you pasted here, he seems to be pointing out in the last line that criticizing religion is, in a nutshell, criticizing the general conditions faced by oppressed people that they use religion to comfort (or to help ignore).

The Qing dynasty in China banned opium in 1729 (this struggle by the Chinese empire to stop the forced import of an addictive narcotic eventually resulting in two opium wars prosecuted by Britain). If you read some of Marx's articles from the New York Daily Tribune on the subject (see for example http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/09/20.htm) you'll see that his view is that opium was a "poison" in his words -- this does not sound ambiguous to me.

In my experience most of the revolutionary-minded people I've met threw off religion before being drawn to revolutionary politics -- this isn't the case 100% but in most cases -- so I don't see how it'd be the case that people would be giving up religion simply because Marx said it, as you seem to claim.

His critique of idealism in philosophy would seem to negate your argument that he might have just meant organized religion, but "spirituality" was good -- see Marx's Theses on Feuerbach on this one.

Also, you refer to Daniel Ortega as a "great marxist" -- how exactly would you defend that when he's essentially known for abandoning any semblance of revolutionary politics and sinking into electoral reformism (not particularly worried about calling for elections where he was defeated by imperialist-backed candidate Chamorro who took his place so democratically) leading to the loss of any potential change the Sandinista revolution could have brought to Nicaragua?

When Ortega came back into power in 2006 he supported a full ban on abortion which was passed shortly before he took office and calls for a six year jail sentence for any woman who aborts a fetus, even if it threatens the woman's life to do so...also he's best buds with Ahmadinejad if that tells you about how reactionary he is.

Don't know much about Thomas Sankara, but maybe you can give me some reading materials to check out about him. If he's a "great marxist" along the lines of Ortega, don't bother...

Consider me 100% in opposition to religion. You cannot understand the world scientifically while believing to be true those reactionary idealist beliefs that were in fact criticized by Marx.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't; in fact, I argue quite the opposite, but I'm just giving the example that, if people follow atheism strictly because they think Marx told them to...then they're wrong for doing so, because Marx didn't even condone atheism. that's all.

:confused:

So you're basically agreeing with what I said, perhaps unknowingly.

You seem to be arguing that since Marx didn't advocate atheism, Marxists who are atheists are "in the wrong."

That's just the converse argument of "Marx said atheism was good..."

[Adi Shankara]

What do you mean he didn't condone atheism? You totally misread that quote you provided, in that quote he's saying the label atheism has a negative connotation, saying when people hear it they think of children who need to tell everybody they're not afraid of the bogey man. Or in other words it brings to mind preachy atheists, saying he doesn't condone atheism because of that one quote is nonsense, kind of like that quote of Marx saying he's not a Marxist(Which has been taken out of context to make it look like Marx thought his ideas were bad and shouldn't be listened to).

It seemed like he was poking fun at atheists, much in the same manner Einstein did is all. his quotes are up for speculation, I'm just going to assume it's how I read it and you can do the same.

[Adi Shankara]

This is a pretty egregious stretching of Marx's words to try to provide a justification for your own narrow (and fundamentally anti-communist) agenda to promote religion, Thomas.

fundamentally anti-communist only to you, and your minor sect of Avakian worshippers. I have seen many communists detract religion, but none of the great leaders of socialist thought have ever said it was a prerequisite to abandon religion--more so, just abandon the priests, parishes, etc. that maintain church power.


In my experience most of the revolutionary-minded people I've met threw off religion before being drawn to revolutionary politics -- this isn't the case 100% but in most cases -- so I don't see how it'd be the case that people would be giving up religion simply because Marx said it, as you seem to claim.

His critique of idealism in philosophy would seem to negate your argument that he might have just meant organized religion, but "spirituality" was good -- see Marx's Theses on Feuerbach on this one.

Also, you refer to Daniel Ortega as a "great marxist" -- how exactly would you defend that when he's essentially known for abandoning any semblance of revolutionary politics and sinking into electoral reformism (not particularly worried about calling for elections where he was defeated by imperialist-backed candidate Chamorro who took his place so democratically) leading to the loss of any potential change the Sandinista revolution could have brought to Nicaragua?

When Ortega came back into power in 2006 he supported a full ban on abortion which was passed shortly before he took office and calls for a six year jail sentence for any woman who aborts a fetus, even if it threatens the woman's life to do so...also he's best buds with Ahmadinejad if that tells you about how reactionary he is.

Don't know much about Thomas Sankara, but maybe you can give me some reading materials to check out about him. If he's a "great marxist" along the lines of Ortega, don't bother...

Consider me 100% in opposition to religion. You cannot understand the world scientifically while believing to be true those reactionary idealist beliefs that were in fact criticized by Marx.

why should I even bother responding to anything you wrote? you criticize me on who I believe is a good example of a revolutionary, and yet you are a follower of His Excellency, Dear Leader Bob Avakian, Light Unto the World (lol). at least Daniel Ortega actually led a people's war, that had the support of Nicaraguan proletariat, that served as an example to the people's of the world, that stood in full solidarity with Cuba, Vietnam, Mozambique, and other such nations, who fought against REAL oppression...he done all that when Chairman Bob was still playing dress-up, living high on the hog, off donation money and book deals (unless he has some job that no one knows about, which would seem rather hypocritical).

most of the revolutionary people, you can say threw off religion or whatever, but many went back into the fold, so to speak...Fidel Castro, for whatever his motive, embraced the catholic church again after some time. Thomas Sankara was a Catholic his entire life. so was Ortega, so was Patrice Lumumba, so was Salvador Allende. (while Allende wasn't a strict communist, he had alliances with many communist parties)

but again, who are you to criticize anyone or make any calls? you think Bob Avakian is some great revolutionary who is going to save the world, when he hasn't done anything for as long as I been alive.:D

[Adi Shankara]

:confused:

So you're basically agreeing with what I said, perhaps unknowingly.

You seem to be arguing that since Marx didn't advocate atheism, Marxists who are atheists are "in the wrong."

That's just the converse argument of "Marx said atheism was good..."

my mistake, and apologies.

[Invincible Summer]

my mistake, and apologies.

I win! :lol:


In all seriousness though, I think it's a problem when it comes to this issue of Marx on religion. I've heard your argument before (Marxists are always staunch atheists because Marx said so, but actually Marx didn't say so so they shouldn't be staunch atheists!) and I actually think it's sort of funny how it's the exact same argument, but the opposite side.

It also happens with sectarian squabbles too... "Group X is so dogmatic, because our party line said so!" or something to that effect